Can you chat your way to greater social connection? Five useful steps can help us strengthen ties and avoid mistakes.
“There is no such thing as conversation,” the novelist and literary critic Rebecca West famously wrote in her collection of stories, The Harsh Voice. “It is an illusion. There are intersecting monologues, that is all.” In her opinion, our own words simply pass over the words of others without any profound communication taking place.
Who has not been able to empathise with this sentiment at some point in their life? Whether we’re making small talk with a barista, or meeting up with a close friend, we may hope to make a connection, only to leave the conversation feeling that our minds have failed to meet.
The pandemic has surely heightened our awareness of these sensations. After long periods of isolation, our hunger for social contact is greater than ever – and it is even more disappointing to feel that a void remains between ourselves and others, even when rules of physical distancing have been lifted.
If this rings true for you, help may be at hand. During the past few years, psychologists studying the art of conversation have identified many of the barriers that stand in the way of a deeper connection, and the ways to remove them. Read on for the top five steps to better conversation.
Ask questions
The first step might seem obvious, yet it is often forgotten: if you want to have a meaningful dialogue with someone – rather than two “intersecting monologues” – then you should make the effort to ask some questions.
Consider the research of Karen Huang, an assistant professor at Georgetown University, US. While studying for a PhD in organisational behaviour at Harvard University, Huang invited more than 130 participants into her laboratory and asked them to converse in pairs for 15 minutes through an online instant messenger. She found that, even in this short period of time, people’s rates of question-asking varied widely, from around four or fewer at the low end to nine or more at the high end.
Throughout a series of follow-up studies, Huang found question-asking made a significant difference to people’s likeability. Analysing the conversations at a speed-dating event, for example, she found that the number of questions asked by a participant could predict their chance of securing another meeting.
Not all questions are equally charming: a follow-up that requires more information about a previous point is more appealing than a ‘switch’ that changes topic, or a ‘mirror’ that simply copies what someone has already asked you. Importantly, Huang’s findings suggested that most people did not anticipate the effects of question asking. We enjoy talking about ourselves, but we underestimate the benefits of letting others do the same – to the detriment of our relationships.
Beware empathy
We are often told to place ourselves in other people’s shoes – but our empathy is rarely as accurate as we think it is.
One reason for this is egocentrism. “It’s when I’m using my own experience, my own mental states, as a proxy for yours,” says Nicholas Epley, a professor of behavioural science at the University of Chicago. “And we fail to differentiate sufficiently between the two.”
In its most basic guise, this egocentrism can be seen when we point to something in our physical surroundings and fail to recognise that it is out of the other person’s line of view, or when we overestimate someone’s knowledge on a topic that is familiar to us and fail to explain ourselves properly. It may also lead us to think that someone else is feeling the same mood as us, or that they hold the same opinions – whether a preference for a particular restaurant or their views on a controversial topic.
Interestingly, Epley’s research has shown that our egocentrism is worse when we are with an acquaintance, rather than a stranger – a phenomenon called the “closeness-communication bias”. “We often perceive close friends and partners to be similar to us, so we assume that they know what we know,” Epley explains. With strangers, we may be a bit more cautious about making those assumptions.
You might hope to solve this problem with some conscious “perspective taking”, in which you deliberately imagine what the other person is thinking and feeling, based on your existing knowledge of them. Yet Epley’s studies show that in many cases, this practice decreases the accuracy of our social perception, since it still relies on us making assumptions that may not be true. In general, it’s far better to ask someone what they actually think and feel, he says, than trying to divine it.
Favour familiarity over originality
How about our choices for the topic of conversation?
It’s natural to assume that people favour originality; we should always attempt to convey something new and exciting, rather than telling someone something they already know. But these intuitions are off kilter. According to research by Gus Cooney, a social psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, US, we suffer a “novelty penalty” when we discuss something new, compared to a subject that is already familiar to the listener.
During one experiment, participants were placed into groups of three. While alone, each member watched one of two short videos, which either described the intelligence of crows or the creation of specialist soda pops. The trio then met in their group, and one member – the speaker – was asked to describe the video he or she had seen, while the others listened for two minutes.
Surprisingly, the listeners preferred to hear the speaker describing the video they had already seen, while they remained distinctly underwhelmed if he spoke about the unfamiliar clip – despite the fact it was providing fresh information that they had not heard before.
Cooney argues that the novelty penalty arises from the “informational gaps” in our conversation. If we are talking about something completely new, our audience may not have enough knowledge to understand everything that we are saying. If we are talking about something already familiar to our audience, however, the listeners can fill in those gaps themselves.
The novelty penalty might explain why a description of an exotic holiday can often fall flat with your colleagues unless they have been to that location themselves. “When the experience is so vibrant in your head, and you can smell it and taste it and see all the colours, you just assume other people can do it too,” says Cooney.
Cooney suggests you might be able to overcome the novelty penalty with finely-tuned storytelling that helps to create a vivid impression of the events you’re describing. “When you are aware of this, you might try a little harder to bring that experience alive,” he says. Until you’ve perfected your patter, however, it may be safer to pick topics of conversation that lean on shared experiences.
Don’t be afraid to go deep
This need for common ground should not limit our conversation to mundane small talk. On the contrary, many shared human experiences can be incredibly profound, and Epley’s recent research shows that most people appreciate the chance to explore their innermost thoughts and feelings, even if they are talking to perfect strangers.
Epley’s team asked pairs of participants, who had not met previously, to discuss questions such as, “If a crystal ball could tell you the truth about yourself, your life, your future or anything else, what would you want to know?”.
Beforehand, most participants feared the exchanges would be painfully awkward – yet the conversation flowed far more smoothly than they had predicted. They also felt a greater sense of connection with their conversation partners than they had thought possible, and this was also accompanied by a happier mood following the exchange. In general, the participants were much more interested in their conversation partners’ innermost thoughts and feelings than each had initially imagined.
“In these deep conversations you get access to the mind of another person, and you get to recognise that the other person actually cares about you,” says Epley. And that can make for a touching exchange of words, even if you will never encounter that person again.
Value tactful honesty over mindless kindness
Imagine, for a moment, you were compelled to talk with complete honesty during every social interaction. How would your relationships fare?
A few years ago, Emma Levine, an associate professor of behavioural science at the University of Chicago, and Taya Cohen, an associate professor of organisational behaviour at Carnegie Mellon University, decided to turn this thought experiment into reality. They recruited 150 participants, who were divided into three groups. The first set were asked to be “absolutely honest” in every conversation, at home and at work, for the next three days; the second set were told to be kind, caring and considerate for the same period, while the final third were encouraged to behave normally.
Most people predict the kind group would have the best experience – while the honest group would struggle to keep their friendships. Yet the honest participants scored just as highly on measures of pleasure and social connection throughout the three days as those who were told to be kind, and often found a lot of meaning in the exchanges.
“It seems like it would be awful,” says Cohen. “But the participants reported being happy to have had the honest conversations, even if they were hard.”
In follow-up experiments, Cohen asked pairs of friends, colleagues or spouses to open up about personal issues – such as the last time they cried or the issues with their current relationship. In each case, the honest communication proved to be far more constructive than people predicted – and the benefits of the candid disclosure on their overall wellbeing continued for at least a week afterwards. “These conversations were having downstream positive effects on the relationships,” Cohen says. “It was a valuable experience.”
It should go without saying that honesty is best served with a healthy dose of diplomacy. Cohen says that you should think carefully about the timing of your comments, the way they are phrased and whether the person will have the opportunity to make use of the information. “Five minutes before the wedding, you don’t need to tell the bride that she looks terrible, right?” There’s no excuse for being a bully, even if you think your insults convey the truth.
When practicing each of these five steps, you should always remain conscious of the other person’s mood and comfort, and be prepared to step away when your conversational gambits are not welcome. But with a little tact, sensitivity and a genuine interest in the people around you, you may often find that greater social connection is easily within your reach.
About the Author:
David Robson is a science writer and author based in London.
Original article here
All over the world, people are awakening to the fact that we are more than bones and flesh. We sense that there is more to life than what we see. The word “consciousness” is losing its unreachable meaning, and we look for ways to go inside ourselves and find inner peace.
There is so much angst in the air these days that we may all be feeling more sensitive, exhausted or even more despondent than usual. So much so, that I feel a lot of folks are at the end of their tether, overwhelmed by the vast onslaught of confusing emotions and free-floating anxiety in the telluric atmosphere.
On Friday, November 19th, there will be a partial Lunar Eclipse in Scorpio-Taurus.
The one message anger can have for us is that our Soul Core is alerting us to some person, situation or thing that violates our sense of Self, or our core values. As such, anger is then your friend, and an ally in helping you in choosing and activating healthy boundaries. In a climate such as we have now, people’s right to say “NO!” is even being taken away. To someone experiencing physical, mental or sexual abuse, we would be appalled if someone were denied the inherent right to say “NO!, that is does not feel good and I will resist!” This is when anger can give us the courage to stand up for ourselves and by saying “no” we are saying “yes” to what feels right and good for us.
It was powerful beyond time to enter that great living pulsing stony timeless being of light. It was vast beyond my understanding, as it seemed to extend beyond the sky into the stars that night. As I stood in the entrance to the great pyramid giving thanks for being there I learned more in that 1 minute passing through the entrance of the great Pyramid then I had accumulated in my entire life. Everything was shown to me in an instant like a life review and then the slate was cleared empty, awaiting being filled again. I entered the Great Pyramid as pure as a Virgin stripped of everything she once knew herself to be. The empty chalice of me at that moment in timelessness was ready to fill with the gifts of the great pyramid, which were beyond my ability to fully consume.
Everything on earth is defined by a numerical configuration. All life can be reduced and explained by numbers. The currents of these numerical sequences bring into alignment a series of new considerations that will help earth to adjust and balance. Each numerical infusion is tailored to fit the needs of each human. As the brain adjusts to these new energies a lifting occurs allowing the individual to exit the human/animal ratio and be lifted into the human/light equation. Numbers and humans go hand in hand. From the beginning of time known we have been defined by a numerical equation whether age, birth date, weight, or the number of wives and camels we have. Numbers have always seemed to be our not so silent partners.
Gillian Macbeth Louthan is a Visionary, a Seer, born with the gift of knowing. She is a clairvoyant psychic with advanced channeling abilities since an early age. She has been a Metaphysical Teacher, Messenger and world known Trance-Channel, for over 40 years She works with the Councils of Light, Mary Magdalene, Merlin, White Buffalo Calf Woman, Mother Mary, the Pleiadians and many other energies of the Christ Light.
Last year, I met an extremely gifted medium in California: Allie Barkalow. If you don’t know what a medium is, it’s a person who communicates with spirits from the other side. I heard about Allie from my dear friend, Carolyn Miller, who is a psychic and known for her amazing tarot and aura photography readings. Carolyn told me that Allie is one of the best psychics she knows, and I figured if she’s anything like Carolyn I had to meet her.
Moldavite is a member of the tektite group, a glassy mixture of silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide and other metal oxides, with a hardness of 5.5 to 6. Its crystal system is amorphous. The color of most specimens is a deep forest green, though some pieces are pale green and others, especially those from Moravia, are greenish brown. A few rare gem grade pieces are almost an emerald green.
People who hold moldavite for the first time most often experience its energy as warmth or heat, usually felt first in one’s hand and then progressively throughout the body. In some cases, there is an opening of the heart chakra, characterized by strange (though not painful) sensations in the chest, an upwelling of emotion and a flushing of the face. This has happened often enough to have earned a name — the “moldavite flush.” Moldavite’s energies can also cause pulsations in the hand, tingling in the third eye and heart chakras, a feeling of light-headedness or dizziness, and occasionally the sense of being lifted out of one’s body. Most people feel that moldavite excites their energies and speeds their vibrations, especially for the first days or weeks, until they become acclimated to it.
Much of modern economic theory is based around a simple idea: Human beings maximize utility. But what is utility? Many people think of it as happiness or pleasure; British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, the inventor of utilitarianism, conceived of it this way. But this isn’t how modern economists think of the concept. To an economist, utility simply means how much people want something. If an economist observes people working hard and making sacrifices to buy houses, then the conclusion is that houses must have lots of utility to those people.
Don Giovanni – the protagonist of Mozart’s opera Don Giovanni (1787), a legendary seducer who is also sometimes known as Don Juan – is, Kierkegaard suggested, the ultimate archetype of the aesthetic mode because he lives for immediate sexual gratification and sensuality. Don Giovanni is a player. He is handsome, seductive and exciting. Women find him irresistible: he has slept with more than 2,000 women whose names he records in his not-so-little black book. Don Giovanni seeks pleasure above all else, and dances through his hedonistic life.
Kierkegaard’s leap was guided by the commandment to ‘love thy neighbour’. In Works of Love(1847), written under Kierkegaard’s real name, he proposes that universal love, or agapē, is the secret to happiness because it overcomes the fleetingness and insecurity of aesthetic and ethical relationships. Love is Ariadne’s thread of life because, as long as you love, as long as you commit yourself to being a loving person, you’ll be safe from being hurt and alone. Kierkegaard thought that this sort of unwavering faith reflects a supremely developed human being.
We are all storytellers; we make sense out of the world by telling stories. And science is a great source of stories. Not so, you might argue. Science is an objective collection and interpretation of data. I completely agree. At the level of the study of purely physical phenomena, science is the only reliable method for establishing the facts of the world.